Hawaii’s fourth-largest union announced Tuesday that it will no longer support Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D), citing, in part, her views on Syrian President Bashar Assad.

The Hawaii State Teachers Association is endorsing Sherry Campagna, who is challenging Gabbard in the Democratic primary on Aug. 11. It’s a huge boost to Campagna, a small business owner, who is being outraised by Gabbard 44 to 1.

In an email to its members, HSTA said it liked that Campagna pledged to fight for more money for public education. But in comments to the Honolulu Civil Beat, HSTA President Corey Rosenlee admitted when it came to the association’s core issue, its members didn’t really have a problem with Gabbard.

“When you only look at her education vote, she’s fine,” he said.

Rosenlee said the real sticking point was with Gabbard’s views on foreign policy.

Ah, yes. Her foreign policy. What terrible things is Gabbard up to this week regarding foreign policy?

The congresswoman’s amendment strikes the language of Section 1225 of the FY2019 NDAA that authorizes the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State to develop and implement a strategy to counter the “destabilizing activities of Iran” and only afterwards inform Congress.
“Make no mistake – the authorization in Section 1225 of the underlying bill authorizes our U.S. military to go to war with Iran, which is one of the main reasons why I voted against this bill in committee. This provision authorizes the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State to ‘develop and implement a strategy with foreign partners to counter the destabilizing activities of Iran.’

“The provision does not define what destabilizing activities they want our troops and taxpayer dollars to counter. It does not define a clear objective or end-state for our troops to achieve. In addition, this provision shuts the American people out from this decision entirely by circumventing Congress’s constitutional responsibility to declare war and giving unilateral power and unending authorization to ‘counter Iran’ to this and future Administrations – without defining in any way, shape, or form what the objective really is.

How horrible. Gabbard is trying to stop a senseless, disastrous war.
She must be stopped!

in the state we’re in. And now that there’s no draft, they feel much more comfortable with war. They don’t figure that them or theirs will ever have to fight and die. Silly asses that they are, the figure war will NEVER come to America so it’s only the ‘troops’ that will ever see its realities.

And now that there’s no draft, they feel much more comfortable with war. They don’t figure that them or theirs will ever have to fight and die. Silly asses that they are, the figure war will NEVER come to America so it’s only the ‘troops’ that will ever see its realities.

Problems with the soldiers escalated in 476, when troops including Heruls, Scirians, and Torcilingi made demands for land grants that were refused by Orestes. The soldiers then turned to Odovacar, a barbarian chieftain from a Hunnish and Scirian background. He promised to grant their requests if they made him king. They did so on 23 August, and then advanced against Orestes.

Orestes was the father and chief military commander of the final Western Emperor, Romulus Augustulus (465? - 525? CE), and the real possessor of the Western Imperial Power as Romulus was a boy of ten or eleven.

in the state we’re in. And now that there’s no draft, they feel much more comfortable with war. They don’t figure that them or theirs will ever have to fight and die. Silly asses that they are, the figure war will NEVER come to America so it’s only the ‘troops’ that will ever see its realities.

There will be a reckoning some day.

up

18 users have voted.

—

"I say enough! If Israel wants to be the only superpower in the Middle East then they can put their own asses on the line and do it themselves. I want to continue to eat."-- snoopydawg

...they say. Up close and personal. But the joke's on them. We probably don't even have a century left.

in the state we’re in. And now that there’s no draft, they feel much more comfortable with war. They don’t figure that them or theirs will ever have to fight and die. Silly asses that they are, the figure war will NEVER come to America so it’s only the ‘troops’ that will ever see its realities.

in the state we’re in. And now that there’s no draft, they feel much more comfortable with war. They don’t figure that them or theirs will ever have to fight and die. Silly asses that they are, the figure war will NEVER come to America so it’s only the ‘troops’ that will ever see its realities.

There will be a reckoning some day.

up

5 users have voted.

—

the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-1.9) All about building progressive media.

@Amanda Matthews
skin in the wars we are fighting but very few even have or had members of the military in their families. That coupled with the virtual blackout on what is really happening in these wars by the media and the fact WWII was the last time the US had an enemy attack on US soil has made Americans very complacent.

When our Peace vigil was still active two years ago, the biggest selling point for talking with people who would stop, was the sheer enormous cost of these wars. Most Americans have no idea how much money is being wasted on wars that we are starting all over the globe. And when I would quote the figures for Iraq and Afghanistan alone, they wer shocked. They then could understand how much good that money would do if invested here in the US. Education and infrastructure were the two most often cited things the public wished the money was going for.

Congress should listen to Tulsi Gabbard. She has been to the battlefield and knows war first hand.

in the state we’re in. And now that there’s no draft, they feel much more comfortable with war. They don’t figure that them or theirs will ever have to fight and die. Silly asses that they are, the figure war will NEVER come to America so it’s only the ‘troops’ that will ever see its realities.

There will be a reckoning some day.

up

9 users have voted.

—

"I don't want to run the empire, I want to bring it down!" ~Dr. Cornel West

"There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare." Sun Tzu

And before this the American people underwent a blitzkrieg of pro-war propaganda. Omitted from was of course the price tag (that was lied about actually), and of course any voices of dissent.

And the people you spoke to, they would not know about the costs as the mass media never reported it with the regularity of the pro-war sides. Things get reported, but then get marginalized and forgotten. Just read where the Russians are cutting back big time on their defense budget, and we are increasing ours dramatically for that darn Russian threat.

#2 skin in the wars we are fighting but very few even have or had members of the military in their families. That coupled with the virtual blackout on what is really happening in these wars by the media and the fact WWII was the last time the US had an enemy attack on US soil has made Americans very complacent.

When our Peace vigil was still active two years ago, the biggest selling point for talking with people who would stop, was the sheer enormous cost of these wars. Most Americans have no idea how much money is being wasted on wars that we are starting all over the globe. And when I would quote the figures for Iraq and Afghanistan alone, they wer shocked. They then could understand how much good that money would do if invested here in the US. Education and infrastructure were the two most often cited things the public wished the money was going for.

Congress should listen to Tulsi Gabbard. She has been to the battlefield and knows war first hand.

It’s interesting that azazello mentioned it now, because I just had a convo with my husband (who is bisexual) about this a couple days ago. I said to him, why do people continually use references to sex, especially homo sex, as the worst kind of degradation? He pointed out that dick sucking and butt sex are not necessary gay. Heh, ok, but I believe that’s what the allusion is. He says maybe not, he thinks straight men often look at women as mere sex “recepticals” and view sex as a dominance game, with the woman being in submission, while gay/bi men more often have a mutual respect with their partners — so he didn’t see it as necessarily homophobic. Then he added it might not even be any kind of anti-sex attitude, but, in his words, “basically just immature.”

I still wonder why sexual references, in general, are so often used by a lot of people this way, to degrade others who they despise. It sounds to me like they hate sex, and especially their sexual partners... if they have any. I don’t really understand the point of such words I guess. As we are part of a sex-positive intentional community, and my vocation is editing and helping writers craft their work, I think a lot about language and how people use it, and what messages it conveys. This particular issue has been in my scope for years. I believe it’s a general language habit that it would be good to break.

It’s interesting that azazello mentioned it now, because I just had a convo with my husband (who is bisexual) about this a couple days ago. I said to him, why do people continually use references to sex, especially homo sex, as the worst kind of degradation? He pointed out that dick sucking and butt sex are not necessary gay. Heh, ok, but I believe that’s what the allusion is. He says maybe not, he thinks straight men often look at women as mere sex “recepticals” and view sex as a dominance game, with the woman being in submission, while gay/bi men more often have a mutual respect with their partners — so he didn’t see it as necessarily homophobic. Then he added it might not even be any kind of anti-sex attitude, but, in his words, “basically just immature.”

I still wonder why sexual references, in general, are so often used by a lot of people this way, to degrade others who they despise. It sounds to me like they hate sex, and especially their sexual partners... if they have any. I don’t really understand the point of such words I guess. As we are part of a sex-positive intentional community, and my vocation is editing and helping writers craft their work, I think a lot about language and how people use it, and what messages it conveys. This particular issue has been in my scope for years. I believe it’s a general language habit that it would be good to break.

up

15 users have voted.

—

Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.

we've used for years@CS in AZ
and years. Centuries likely.
And hubby's right.
butt fucking, as a straight man on the receiving end, is the most brutally humiliating form of submission there is. The one doing the penetrating obviously knows this and is why he is performing the humiliation. Pretty much as simple as that, and hence the references to same. It is Not a reference to gay sex, it is simply a reference to submission.

It’s interesting that azazello mentioned it now, because I just had a convo with my husband (who is bisexual) about this a couple days ago. I said to him, why do people continually use references to sex, especially homo sex, as the worst kind of degradation? He pointed out that dick sucking and butt sex are not necessary gay. Heh, ok, but I believe that’s what the allusion is. He says maybe not, he thinks straight men often look at women as mere sex “recepticals” and view sex as a dominance game, with the woman being in submission, while gay/bi men more often have a mutual respect with their partners — so he didn’t see it as necessarily homophobic. Then he added it might not even be any kind of anti-sex attitude, but, in his words, “basically just immature.”

I still wonder why sexual references, in general, are so often used by a lot of people this way, to degrade others who they despise. It sounds to me like they hate sex, and especially their sexual partners... if they have any. I don’t really understand the point of such words I guess. As we are part of a sex-positive intentional community, and my vocation is editing and helping writers craft their work, I think a lot about language and how people use it, and what messages it conveys. This particular issue has been in my scope for years. I believe it’s a general language habit that it would be good to break.

up

11 users have voted.

—

the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-1.9) All about building progressive media.

...has been Center-Right for at least the past 20 years. Lately, I've been recalling times over that span when concepts I mentioned were pushed back on hard by peers (I now have seen that certain of them are agents or operatives). At the time, I was perplexed that concepts like the "Fairness Doctrine" or commodities like "gold" were forbidden topics. Only certain Human Rights could be discussed, like those pertaining to race and sex. The Human Right to food or shelter are still shunned in that context. Even the Human Right to life, ie. health care or the death penalty were not permitted until very recently, and even then, the death penalty is still nixed. There is a bevy of important facts that are constantly forgotten and ignored, as well, like the fact that Americans pay among the lowest tax rate of all 167 nations. And war has been swept off the table for so long, such discussions are a very distant memory.

The narrowing of the spectrum of permitted topics, the constant social corrections, the embarrassing denial, and the dramatic wailing of the deeply offended in the "forbidden" discussions is the type of propaganda that is used by agents of the soft coup. This makes the topic of "Democrats" seem like a very low level of activism. Most of us operate with skills far above the level of US political parties, which are clearly no more than wind-up toys that are owned and operated by their betters.

Have a conservative wing.

It is a full on conservative party with a few left leaning outliers and has been for quite some time...

There is a bevy of important facts that are constantly forgotten and ignored, as well, like the fact that Americans pay among the lowest tax rate of all 167 nations.

While still paying more in purely confiscatory taxes than most of them.

(The vast majority of taxes paid by non-Americans goes to provide direct benefits to the taxpayers, such as social insurances, medical care, education, etc. And, of course, our war addiction has to be paid for somehow....)

...has been Center-Right for at least the past 20 years. Lately, I've been recalling times over that span when concepts I mentioned were pushed back on hard by peers (I now have seen that certain of them are agents or operatives). At the time, I was perplexed that concepts like the "Fairness Doctrine" or commodities like "gold" were forbidden topics. Only certain Human Rights could be discussed, like those pertaining to race and sex. The Human Right to food or shelter are still shunned in that context. Even the Human Right to life, ie. health care or the death penalty were not permitted until very recently, and even then, the death penalty is still nixed. There is a bevy of important facts that are constantly forgotten and ignored, as well, like the fact that Americans pay among the lowest tax rate of all 167 nations. And war has been swept off the table for so long, such discussions are a very distant memory.

The narrowing of the spectrum of permitted topics, the constant social corrections, the embarrassing denial, and the dramatic wailing of the deeply offended in the "forbidden" discussions is the type of propaganda that is used by agents of the soft coup. This makes the topic of "Democrats" seem like a very low level of activism. Most of us operate with skills far above the level of US political parties, which are clearly no more than wind-up toys that are owned and operated by their betters.

up

10 users have voted.

—

"I say enough! If Israel wants to be the only superpower in the Middle East then they can put their own asses on the line and do it themselves. I want to continue to eat."-- snoopydawg

@Pluto's Republic
Some special interests are more equal than others. The democrats are long on promises and rhetoric, but so so so short on delivering on those promises. That is also a forbidden topic, because, well, the democrats didn't have a 105% majority in everything. Besides, when so many things are off the table, you end up with a mostly empty table.

...has been Center-Right for at least the past 20 years. Lately, I've been recalling times over that span when concepts I mentioned were pushed back on hard by peers (I now have seen that certain of them are agents or operatives). At the time, I was perplexed that concepts like the "Fairness Doctrine" or commodities like "gold" were forbidden topics. Only certain Human Rights could be discussed, like those pertaining to race and sex. The Human Right to food or shelter are still shunned in that context. Even the Human Right to life, ie. health care or the death penalty were not permitted until very recently, and even then, the death penalty is still nixed. There is a bevy of important facts that are constantly forgotten and ignored, as well, like the fact that Americans pay among the lowest tax rate of all 167 nations. And war has been swept off the table for so long, such discussions are a very distant memory.

The narrowing of the spectrum of permitted topics, the constant social corrections, the embarrassing denial, and the dramatic wailing of the deeply offended in the "forbidden" discussions is the type of propaganda that is used by agents of the soft coup. This makes the topic of "Democrats" seem like a very low level of activism. Most of us operate with skills far above the level of US political parties, which are clearly no more than wind-up toys that are owned and operated by their betters.

My parents used to vote Conservative - until the Conservative Party was taken over by first the appallingly corrupt and then blatant psychopaths wearing a conservative label...

Edit: then Liberal, before realizing that the Liberal Party had been taken over by charming psychopaths wearing a Liberal label and some expensive lapels.

Wound up voting NDP, as we at least had a little more choice here than people in the US. Corporate interests/billionaires who've moved more heavily in on us here since NAFTA have to bribe, propagandize against and cheat more parties here. New NDP leader sounds great overall, dunno if kabuki or not/intended to split voters away from the Green Party...

Edit to add the actual point, (canine distractions, lol) that, of course, that the problem is with the ruthless power/wealth-grabbing willing to do anything to gain control over others - and it's spread through numerous countries to the point that it's extremely difficult to find any uncorrupted/un-co-opted party at all, even where there's an effective choice of more than two.

Have a conservative wing.

It is a full on conservative party with a few left leaning outliers and has been for quite some time...

up

5 users have voted.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

@Alphalop
And this is why we need a new party because the Democrats have refused to reform despite having lost over 1,000 elected offices in the last ten years. They do not care as long as the donor gravy train keeps rolling their way.

Have a conservative wing.

It is a full on conservative party with a few left leaning outliers and has been for quite some time...

up

9 users have voted.

—

"I don't want to run the empire, I want to bring it down!" ~Dr. Cornel West

"There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare." Sun Tzu

would make a good team in a Peace Party. I would vote for either or both of them, just as you say, regardless of other issues, because for me there is no environmental or social justice in a future in which there is no life on earth.

#6.2.1
She does this with no small amount of political risk.
I'm going to support her for being consistently right on this, even if she was a member of, say, a white supremacist group, or whatever.

I also really like Ron Paul on foreign policy issues too. Even though I loath his domestic politics.

would make a good team in a Peace Party. I would vote for either or both of them, just as you say, regardless of other issues, because for me there is no environmental or social justice in a future in which there is no life on earth.

to look more closely, and I consider the CFR to be the work of the devil. But. I think the CFR allows some people in who are A. feminist, B. military, and even C., anti-stupid-war because it makes them look like they're open minded. She's eye candy. But you may be right. She may be pro-stupid-war and just feminist military eye candy. I'm not arguing with you. I'm listening. I think by going to Syria and speaking out about the war there, Gabbard took meaningful public relations risks. But I hear you.

#6.2.1.2.1 I guess I was wrong. You might want to look a little more
closely at her history.

@Linda Wood
I've researched her views on Ukraine and Russia, Israel, Iran, and the war OF terror, I did that well over a year ago and wrote an essay about it last year, and what I saw told me a different story than the one presented here.
But after reviewing the comments on that essay last year, I think I'll just give it a rest.

to look more closely, and I consider the CFR to be the work of the devil. But. I think the CFR allows some people in who are A. feminist, B. military, and even C., anti-stupid-war because it makes them look like they're open minded. She's eye candy. But you may be right. She may be pro-stupid-war and just feminist military eye candy. I'm not arguing with you. I'm listening. I think by going to Syria and speaking out about the war there, Gabbard took meaningful public relations risks. But I hear you.

#6.2.1.2.1.1.1 I've researched her views on Ukraine and Russia, Israel, Iran, and the war OF terror, I did that well over a year ago and wrote an essay about it last year, and what I saw told me a different story than the one presented here.
But after reviewing the comments on that essay last year, I think I'll just give it a rest.

I’m not familiar with exactly what the CFR does or what being a member indicates.

But I did look into her background, I spent a good part of yesterday reading up on her, and watching various interviews. I like some things she’s done. Her religious views are concerning however, to say the least; I’m always leary of politicians who are extremely religious, regardless of what religion.

On war, she is 100% pro-military, extremely so, and she believes fervently in the “war on terror” and that the US must wage active war on and “defeat” Islamic extremists/terrorists. Sooo.... how that squares with her supposedly being anti-intervionist and against “unnecessary” wars, I don’t know.

She seems like early Obama, trying to get the anti war image, but actually right on board with expanding the forever war. And like him, she has a very appealing image. And she has cred from quitting the DNC to endorse Bernie. And standing up to the Clintons, again like Obama did in the beginning. I know that the main reasons I got into his campaign early on were (1) that he challenged the Clintons, and (2) he spoke against “dumb wars” — but he also, like Gabbard, insisted the “war on terrorists” wasn’t a dumb war, but a necessary one. Too many of us overlooked that.

#6.2.1.2.1 I guess I was wrong. You might want to look a little more
closely at her history.

@CS in AZ
on the planet and directly responsible for much of the war making on the planet. I think anyone who is a member should be barred from government service, let alone actually vote for them. But that's me.

Here's Clinton on the CFR.

As for Gabbard, I wrote an essay on her last year explaining her views on the war OF terror (you're exactly right), which is why many call her an Islamophobe (combined with her racist religion). Her views on Ukraine and Russia, North Korea, Iran, and Israel and are the same, along the lines of the false narratives and lies all imperialists use. Like Sanders.

But hey, people want another democratic party "antiwar" hero, so they take anything that sounds good and run with it. Actually if you read what she's saying in her amendment, she's just demanding more definition of the plan of action and that Congress must declare war on Iran, not the NDAA, a typical democratic party approach to republican controlled foreign policy, which they didn't do with Obama.

She also does stuff like this:

"Today, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02) announced support for the bipartisan Zero Tolerance for Terror Act, introduced in response to Iran illegally launching two ballistic missiles in October and November 2015. After investigating the October 10th launch, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) found that the launch violated UNSC Resolution 1929, but the Council did not take action against Iran. The congresswoman is an original co-sponsor of the legislation, which would allow Congress to quickly impose sanctions if the Iranian government commits an act of terror, provides support for terrorist organizations or violates international law by acquiring ballistic missile technology. While the implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) will scale back nuclear sanctions, it does not limit the ability of Congress to enact new sanctions related to acts of terror or development of ballistic missiles.

“It’s been just 6 months since Iran agreed to curb its nuclear activity and end its pursuits to develop a nuclear weapon, and Iran is already using other means to threaten our allies and violate its international commitments, including two recent ballistic missile tests that directly violate the UN Security Council Resolution 1929 and were aimed at threatening our allies in Israel. If we fail to take action to hold Iran accountable now, ensuring there are consequences to their actions, all future efforts to enforce the terms of these agreements will ring hollow," said Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee."

She was also a key co-sponsor of the the North Korea Sanctions Enforcement Act last year which passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a stunning 418 to 2. Here's Gabbard:

"North Korea continues to pose a serious and dangerous threat to my constituents in Hawaii, the Pacific, and the West Coast of the United States. Our communities and our families lie within range of North Korea’s intercontinental ballistic missiles. North Korea’s nuclear tests just a week ago, and their continued pursuit of developing more nuclear weapons and miniaturizing those weapons, serve as a reminder of the threat that North Korea poses to our country, which my constituents in Hawaii know all too well.”

This is similar to her stance on Iran where she was one of the few polticians to come out against the Iran "deal" because she felt it didn't go far enough and would be too hard to enforce. Here's Gabbard on Breitbart News:

"When asked if she had any advice for the president, she responded, “put yourself in Israel’s shoes. I think whether you’re — when you’re in any kind of situation like this where there’s a little bit of a standoff and personalities and egos are hurt, if you put yourself in their shoes and understand where he’s coming from, where the Israeli people are coming from and their deep concern about Iran’s continued development of a nuclear weapon and what they want to do with that.”

I’m not familiar with exactly what the CFR does or what being a member indicates.

But I did look into her background, I spent a good part of yesterday reading up on her, and watching various interviews. I like some things she’s done. Her religious views are concerning however, to say the least; I’m always leary of politicians who are extremely religious, regardless of what religion.

On war, she is 100% pro-military, extremely so, and she believes fervently in the “war on terror” and that the US must wage active war on and “defeat” Islamic extremists/terrorists. Sooo.... how that squares with her supposedly being anti-intervionist and against “unnecessary” wars, I don’t know.

She seems like early Obama, trying to get the anti war image, but actually right on board with expanding the forever war. And like him, she has a very appealing image. And she has cred from quitting the DNC to endorse Bernie. And standing up to the Clintons, again like Obama did in the beginning. I know that the main reasons I got into his campaign early on were (1) that he challenged the Clintons, and (2) he spoke against “dumb wars” — but he also, like Gabbard, insisted the “war on terrorists” wasn’t a dumb war, but a necessary one. Too many of us overlooked that.

gabbard back in the day, as i was also featuring my main chich with her. i didn't make a separate diary around it, but given my loathing of her support for the nationalist hindu thug narenda modi, it was easy to bingle. iir, he'd been banned from even entering the US, then when it was convenient for nato's purposes, she took him on two charm offensives across amerika.

'The Curious Islamophobic Politics of Dem Congressmember Tulsi Gabbard'; Gabbard comes from one of the nation's most progressive chapters of the Democratic Party, Zaid Jilani / AlterNet, February 22, 2015

"But the case of Tulsi Gabbard becomes less curious and more expected once you look at her links to a different set of ethnic and religious hardliners: the Hindu nationalist Indian Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Since her election to Congress, Gabbard has tied herself closely to this party, which has a history of condoning hatred and violence against India's Muslim minority. Many of her stateside donors and supporters are also big supporters of this movement, which disdains secularism and promotes religious sectarianism.

Meet the Islamophobic BJP

In May 2014, the BJP swept the Indian election, and the man it made prime minister was then-governor of the state of Gujarat, Narendra Modi. To say Modi is a controversial figure would be a considerable understatement. In 2002, huge riots broke out in his state, with primarily Hindu mobs attacking Muslim residents. Over 2,000 men, women, and children were killed, with many more injured; mass rape was also documented. Almost all of the victims were Muslim."

oh, lard and lol: "While he escaped repercussions at home, Modi faced them abroad. In 2005, the Bush administration issued a decision to deny Modi a visa to travel to Madison Square Garden to address a rally of supporters, citing a 1998 law that bars foreign officials guilty of “severe violations of religious freedom” from possessing visas. Modi was the first and only person ever denied a visa under this law."

now this i hadn't known, but the way he expressed it made me laugh:

"Perhaps Gabbard is a sort of consigliere for this alliance of Hindu nationalists and right-wing Zionists, as she is the only House Democrat backing a bill basically designed to benefit one of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's closest political allies, Sheldon Adelson. The bill is part of a crackdown on online gambling that Adelson is promoting in order to destroy competition to his casino chain."

modi has blocked the promised plebiscite for kashmiri and jammu self-determination year after year, and remember: peace between 2 nuclear nations pakistan and india: the silent elephant in the room is: Kashmir. and the clashes go on...and on. fuck modi.

#6.2.1.2.1.1.2 on the planet and directly responsible for much of the war making on the planet. I think anyone who is a member should be barred from government service, let alone actually vote for them. But that's me.

Here's Clinton on the CFR.

As for Gabbard, I wrote an essay on her last year explaining her views on the war OF terror (you're exactly right), which is why many call her an Islamophobe (combined with her racist religion). Her views on Ukraine and Russia, North Korea, Iran, and Israel and are the same, along the lines of the false narratives and lies all imperialists use. Like Sanders.

But hey, people want another democratic party "antiwar" hero, so they take anything that sounds good and run with it. Actually if you read what she's saying in her amendment, she's just demanding more definition of the plan of action and that Congress must declare war on Iran, not the NDAA, a typical democratic party approach to republican controlled foreign policy, which they didn't do with Obama.

She also does stuff like this:

"Today, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02) announced support for the bipartisan Zero Tolerance for Terror Act, introduced in response to Iran illegally launching two ballistic missiles in October and November 2015. After investigating the October 10th launch, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) found that the launch violated UNSC Resolution 1929, but the Council did not take action against Iran. The congresswoman is an original co-sponsor of the legislation, which would allow Congress to quickly impose sanctions if the Iranian government commits an act of terror, provides support for terrorist organizations or violates international law by acquiring ballistic missile technology. While the implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) will scale back nuclear sanctions, it does not limit the ability of Congress to enact new sanctions related to acts of terror or development of ballistic missiles.

“It’s been just 6 months since Iran agreed to curb its nuclear activity and end its pursuits to develop a nuclear weapon, and Iran is already using other means to threaten our allies and violate its international commitments, including two recent ballistic missile tests that directly violate the UN Security Council Resolution 1929 and were aimed at threatening our allies in Israel. If we fail to take action to hold Iran accountable now, ensuring there are consequences to their actions, all future efforts to enforce the terms of these agreements will ring hollow," said Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee."

She was also a key co-sponsor of the the North Korea Sanctions Enforcement Act last year which passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a stunning 418 to 2. Here's Gabbard:

"North Korea continues to pose a serious and dangerous threat to my constituents in Hawaii, the Pacific, and the West Coast of the United States. Our communities and our families lie within range of North Korea’s intercontinental ballistic missiles. North Korea’s nuclear tests just a week ago, and their continued pursuit of developing more nuclear weapons and miniaturizing those weapons, serve as a reminder of the threat that North Korea poses to our country, which my constituents in Hawaii know all too well.”

This is similar to her stance on Iran where she was one of the few polticians to come out against the Iran "deal" because she felt it didn't go far enough and would be too hard to enforce. Here's Gabbard on Breitbart News:

"When asked if she had any advice for the president, she responded, “put yourself in Israel’s shoes. I think whether you’re — when you’re in any kind of situation like this where there’s a little bit of a standoff and personalities and egos are hurt, if you put yourself in their shoes and understand where he’s coming from, where the Israeli people are coming from and their deep concern about Iran’s continued development of a nuclear weapon and what they want to do with that.”

gabbard back in the day, as i was also featuring my main chich with her. i didn't make a separate diary around it, but given my loathing of her support for the nationalist hindu thug narenda modi, it was easy to bingle. iir, he'd been banned from even entering the US, then when it was convenient for nato's purposes, she took him on two charm offensives across amerika.

'The Curious Islamophobic Politics of Dem Congressmember Tulsi Gabbard'; Gabbard comes from one of the nation's most progressive chapters of the Democratic Party, Zaid Jilani / AlterNet, February 22, 2015

"But the case of Tulsi Gabbard becomes less curious and more expected once you look at her links to a different set of ethnic and religious hardliners: the Hindu nationalist Indian Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Since her election to Congress, Gabbard has tied herself closely to this party, which has a history of condoning hatred and violence against India's Muslim minority. Many of her stateside donors and supporters are also big supporters of this movement, which disdains secularism and promotes religious sectarianism.

Meet the Islamophobic BJP

In May 2014, the BJP swept the Indian election, and the man it made prime minister was then-governor of the state of Gujarat, Narendra Modi. To say Modi is a controversial figure would be a considerable understatement. In 2002, huge riots broke out in his state, with primarily Hindu mobs attacking Muslim residents. Over 2,000 men, women, and children were killed, with many more injured; mass rape was also documented. Almost all of the victims were Muslim."

oh, lard and lol: "While he escaped repercussions at home, Modi faced them abroad. In 2005, the Bush administration issued a decision to deny Modi a visa to travel to Madison Square Garden to address a rally of supporters, citing a 1998 law that bars foreign officials guilty of “severe violations of religious freedom” from possessing visas. Modi was the first and only person ever denied a visa under this law."

now this i hadn't known, but the way he expressed it made me laugh:

"Perhaps Gabbard is a sort of consigliere for this alliance of Hindu nationalists and right-wing Zionists, as she is the only House Democrat backing a bill basically designed to benefit one of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's closest political allies, Sheldon Adelson. The bill is part of a crackdown on online gambling that Adelson is promoting in order to destroy competition to his casino chain."

modi has blocked the promised plebiscite for kashmiri and jammu self-determination year after year, and remember: peace between 2 nuclear nations pakistan and india: the silent elephant in the room is: Kashmir. and the clashes go on...and on. fuck modi.

although she does seem to change her politics er...rather pragmatically...her islamophobia might be right in line with many voters' preferences, eh? but srsly, that was quite a link. she first came on my radar w/ her modi love and tours, i will say.

modi is one.bad.man. his 'cashless society' ain't workin' out too well, esp. for the underclass, either. did he have to rescind all that? it's been some time i checked in w/ His Namasté Highness on twitter. his campaign posters that i have on the café's media library are just like sheperd (sp?) fairey's one for obomba, only gold and green (he's The Lion)

best to you, gotta go.

#6.2.1.2.1.1.2.1.1 I don't see how she could even get close to the presidency with that history. It's not like people haven't been warned.
Last year all that got me was getting called a purist.

I give her a campaign contribution from time to time. She is one of the few sane voices in Congress on war. The problem for her is that the Democrats are full-on war hawks especially when it comes to Russia, Iran or Syria, and probably Korea. It's part of their campaign strategy -- Democrats strong enough to spill the blood of "our adversaries" in order to make the world safe for our coporations. How dare she run contrary to this strategy? Even Bernie tip-toes around this topic. Where the hell is the anti-war movement in America?

up

19 users have voted.

—

Capitalism has always been the rule of the people by the oligarchs. You only have two choices, eliminate them or restrict their power.

I give her a campaign contribution from time to time. She is one of the few sane voices in Congress on war. The problem for her is that the Democrats are full-on war hawks especially when it comes to Russia, Iran or Syria, and probably Korea. It's part of their campaign strategy -- Democrats strong enough to spill the blood of "our adversaries" in order to make the world safe for our coporations. How dare she run contrary to this strategy? Even Bernie tip-toes around this topic. Where the hell is the anti-war movement in America?

We're going to war@karl pearson
and you dirty anti-war hippies can kiss our MIC ass if you don't like it, becuz we're going anyway. We're leaving you dirty hippie Vietnam war protesters in the dust, your anti-war days are over.

@The Wizard
there was a small Peace vigil here in my town in the mountains of western NC. It lasted for over 13 years and I was with it for the last 4 1/2 years. It ceased two years ago because all its members except one (me) were in their eighties. We could not find any people who were willing to spend the time every Saturday. When we got down to just two of us, Don who was in his late eighties and a founder of the vigil decided to disband it.

I give her a campaign contribution from time to time. She is one of the few sane voices in Congress on war. The problem for her is that the Democrats are full-on war hawks especially when it comes to Russia, Iran or Syria, and probably Korea. It's part of their campaign strategy -- Democrats strong enough to spill the blood of "our adversaries" in order to make the world safe for our coporations. How dare she run contrary to this strategy? Even Bernie tip-toes around this topic. Where the hell is the anti-war movement in America?

up

7 users have voted.

—

"I don't want to run the empire, I want to bring it down!" ~Dr. Cornel West

"There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare." Sun Tzu

If there's a planet left to fight on, good luck. There will always be token Ds to placate "the fringe" elements who crave peace, I think. "That's the system" of plutocracy I wanna smash to bits. There are not enough hours in the day to meditate, I can't breath.

A plutocracy (Greek: πλοῦτος, ploutos, 'wealth' + κράτος, kratos, 'rule') or plutarchy is a society that is ruled or controlled by people of great wealth or income. The first known use of the term was in 1631. Unlike systems such as democracy, capitalism, socialism or anarchism, plutocracy is not rooted in an established political philosophy. The concept of plutocracy may be advocated by the wealthy classes of a society in an indirect or surreptitious fashion, though the term itself is almost always used in a pejorative sense.

To get yourself a war, one of the things you need is the criminalization of diplomacy to make peaceful resolutions impossible. Howard Dean's attack on Tulsi on Morning Joe was absolutely based on this. Diplomacy is criminal so Tulsi is a criminal. Both parties are doing this with Russia, Iran, Cuba, North Korea, Syria, and Venezuela and in near future China. Diplomacy is seen as an act of collusion if done with an official state enemy. Ronald Reagan was accused by his own side of treason for talking with Gorby and coming up with a treat to limit nukes.

And when anybody talks with these forbidden evil countries, it must be done in the most aggressive manner possible. Look at how brave and smug Americans are when they interviewed Putin. Trump was attacked for not being belligerent with Putin (by the democrats). Olive Stone was attacked over and over in his main stream interviews because he simply listened to Putin to report back what exactly Putin's positions were. Contact with Putin is criminal, and Stone became a criminal.

they must be isolated, so that the humanity of the targets can be denied and demonization achieved.

The bullying 'kindergarten spite' approach utilized by such as Monsanto/Bivings seems to work surprisingly well, even on those without career concerns at risk for not following Party lines, which I suspect has to do with fostered insecurities and people either propagandized into mistaking nastiness for strength or simply afraid of being called names.

I'm sometimes horrified beyond words by what even people I know now seem to accept as 'normal' human behaviours... luckily not often actually encountered, but unthinkable to me or to any well-brought-up 3-year-old. It just wouldn't ever have crossed anyone's minds when I was growing up, unless perhaps they had had a very bad upbringing/abusive parents or a mental disorder. But as small children, we also weren't routinely fed GMOs, fast foods or drugs for being energetically active or day-dreamers...

To get yourself a war, one of the things you need is the criminalization of diplomacy to make peaceful resolutions impossible. Howard Dean's attack on Tulsi on Morning Joe was absolutely based on this. Diplomacy is criminal so Tulsi is a criminal. Both parties are doing this with Russia, Iran, Cuba, North Korea, Syria, and Venezuela and in near future China. Diplomacy is seen as an act of collusion if done with an official state enemy. Ronald Reagan was accused by his own side of treason for talking with Gorby and coming up with a treat to limit nukes.

And when anybody talks with these forbidden evil countries, it must be done in the most aggressive manner possible. Look at how brave and smug Americans are when they interviewed Putin. Trump was attacked for not being belligerent with Putin (by the democrats). Olive Stone was attacked over and over in his main stream interviews because he simply listened to Putin to report back what exactly Putin's positions were. Contact with Putin is criminal, and Stone became a criminal.

up

4 users have voted.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Meant for @CS in AZ
. Can't remember where I got this but....The Romans saw sexuality as the superior penetrator and the inferior penetratee. And this applied to both men and women who got penetrated. The Romans were not against bisexual contact between men, but this binary still applied to them. Seems those ideas still exist today.

I don't watch The Young Turks because of Cenk, but in one videos, he went into an absolute disgusting homophobic rant aboutTrump and Putin likening them to a gay couple. He was wondering who was the top and who was the bottom with the implication of superior/inferior.

The worst homophobic Putin/Trump rants have come from the Resistance as noted by Greenwald, as it relies as seeing gay interactions as perverted and disgusting.

It’s interesting that azazello mentioned it now, because I just had a convo with my husband (who is bisexual) about this a couple days ago. I said to him, why do people continually use references to sex, especially homo sex, as the worst kind of degradation? He pointed out that dick sucking and butt sex are not necessary gay. Heh, ok, but I believe that’s what the allusion is. He says maybe not, he thinks straight men often look at women as mere sex “recepticals” and view sex as a dominance game, with the woman being in submission, while gay/bi men more often have a mutual respect with their partners — so he didn’t see it as necessarily homophobic. Then he added it might not even be any kind of anti-sex attitude, but, in his words, “basically just immature.”

I still wonder why sexual references, in general, are so often used by a lot of people this way, to degrade others who they despise. It sounds to me like they hate sex, and especially their sexual partners... if they have any. I don’t really understand the point of such words I guess. As we are part of a sex-positive intentional community, and my vocation is editing and helping writers craft their work, I think a lot about language and how people use it, and what messages it conveys. This particular issue has been in my scope for years. I believe it’s a general language habit that it would be good to break.